Photos from last night/today

Fenster

http://www.bhalash.com/archives/210

I got some (hopefully) interesting photos down at the beach last night. I'd love to know what you all make of this one especially, it was my first try at one of "those" beach shots.


Definately not my usual crop

Covey

Looks an interesting Spot.

The bottom third is uninteresting, adds nothing to the shot. Its very noisy, probably high iso and no tripod, I suspect.

The atmosphere is fab. Id revisit, bring a wide angle and tripod and stick it right in front of a rock with interest in the middle and BG. A longer exposure would bring out that lovely misty effect also.

T.

Valentia

Covey wrote:

Looks an interesting Spot.

The bottom third is uninteresting, adds nothing to the shot. Its very noisy, probably high iso and no tripod, I suspect.

The atmosphere is fab. Id revisit, bring a wide angle and tripod and stick it right in front of a rock with interest in the middle and BG. A longer exposure would bring out that lovely misty effect also.

T.

I'd suspect that the exposure was about 20s with a medium wideangle, say 24mm and the f stop was about f13. Anyway accurate Fen?

I really like this. Other planety kind of. Oh, and I'd imagine you did use a tripod if my guesstimate of speed is correct.

The ISO @100 I reckon.

PS Sorry Covey, couldn't resist. All the info is in the EXIF.

Covey

Your probably right Valentia, but nearly 50% of the shot, bottom to top is unsharp and its as noisy as hell.

With equipment like that and a tripod you wouldn't expect that, unless of course
you post process it like that. In which case it doesn't work for me.

T.

Roen

Looks like a shot that the Mars rover would get, I like a lot, kind of otherworldly.

Covey

BTW,

Is that somewhere near Carna?

And if thats on a tripod and around 24mm @ f13, then send the lens back.

T.

elven

Covey wrote:

Looks an interesting Spot.

The bottom third is uninteresting, adds nothing to the shot. Its very noisy, probably high iso and no tripod, I suspect.

The atmosphere is fab. Id revisit, bring a wide angle and tripod and stick it right in front of a rock with interest in the middle and BG. A longer exposure would bring out that lovely misty effect also.

T.

What you're describing there is a paint by numbers calendar beach sunset picture. Not necessarily the only/best way to do it - I'd be inclined to say there's a reason that fenster didn't come home with that shot, and it isn't because he hadn't thought of it...

I can't make my mind up about this though, on one hand the colours and mistiness are gorgeous, I'm really intrigued by those funny shapes in the distance (birds?) and I like the narrow crop. I think maybe that foreground rock is just a bit too central and out of focus, steals the attention a bit.

sineadw

I'd be interested to see it pre-crop? I love the background of it - the larger file, it looks like something from 'labyrinth' or something. Half expect the jabberwokky to stroll into shot

Fenster

Well here's the original crop:


The usual crop of an unusally cropped photo

I'm not too taken on it, it alternatly seems too bright or too dark or too washed out or too colourful.

Fie, it was more to prove I could get this kind of effect with my gear - unfortunately I only have 52mm diamater ND filters - and only a 2x and 4x - which only fit my 28mm f/2.8, which is a(n excellent) portrait lens in truth. And as a portrait lens it has a fairly narrow field of view, although the tradeoff is a big aperature. I was flat on the ground, inches from the waves and with my camera propped up on rocks. I think I upped the ISO as I felt I was in a good position, but the tide was coming in fast.

melekalikimaka

i prefere the crop, nice shot, beaches are always interesting, everyone has their own view on a 'good' shot, thus i have never taken my camera near a beach, too hard imo

440Hz

Really like that, great work, very atmospheric!! Something very mystical about it as well

Covey

elven wrote:

What you're describing there is a paint by numbers calendar beach sunset picture. Not necessarily the only/best way to do it - I'd be inclined to say there's a reason that fenster didn't come home with that shot, and it isn't because he hadn't thought of it...

I really don't think so, but dream on if you must.

Now that the original is posted, I think it suffers from the huge crop, the high iso the lack of a tripod and shooting a landscape wide open. It rearely works trying to get a "second" shot from that originally taken imo.

Oh, I nearly forgot the lack of a sunset doesn't help either :rolleyes:

Morlar

I prefer the tight crop in the first post. Having said that I think the rock in the foreground is a bit too dark and kind of deadens the overall mood of the picture. I think the most interesting parts of the picture are the misty distant areas in the top part of the cropped picture.

ps I have to agree with Elven there covey.

Covey

What beach, what sunset ????

And painting by numbers it most certainly isn't. Taking a landscape at F2.8 , well it is unusual I'll give you that.

Morlar

Covey wrote:

What beach, what sunset ????

And painting by numbers it most certainly isn't. Taking a landscape at F2.8 , well it is unusual I'll give you that.

What you were advising in your post above :

"bring a wide angle and tripod and stick it right in front of a rock with interest in the middle and BG. A longer exposure would bring out that lovely misty effect "

is the bog-standard - paint by numbers - seen a million times before kind of formula picture. Technically correct and technically boring.

Having seen much of fensters usual work I think its a reasonable guess that he could have approached the shot like the way you described if he had wanted to - I dont think its a matter of 'dreaming on' to guess that the photographer was trying for something a little more original in this shot - regardless of whether it worked or not.

Covey

I stand corrected then

Valentia

Covey wrote:

Taking a landscape at F2.8 , well it is unusual I'll give you that.

Where do you get the 2.8? The exif says f13 I think.

Covey

Well I assumed , maybe incorrectly, that upping the ISO was because the light was so bad, no tripod etc..

If thats taken at f13 it is unsharp practically down to the shoreline, something you wouldn't expect at that aperture. Though that level of unsharpness would be consistent with a wide aperature, so that was the assumption I made, as I say maybe incorrectly.

Fenster

Covey wrote:

Well I assumed , maybe incorrectly, that upping the ISO was because the light was so bad, no tripod etc..

If thats taken at f13 it is unsharp practically down to the shoreline, something you wouldn't expect at that aperture. Though that level of unsharpness would be consistent with a wide aperature, so that was the assumption I made, as I say maybe incorrectly.

Focus was to infinity and the beach in the foreground was about three inches from the camera.

Covey

I'm just wondering why a large amount of the FG is so unsharp? Doesn't make sense with those settings.

T.

Fenster

...because it was three inches from the lens, as I've already said.

Covey

Right, goodnite :rolleyes:

Fenster

I'm being implicitly attacked because the very nature of how my camera took the photo rendered part of it out of focus. I honestly don't know whether to be amused or annoyed.

mikeanywhere

Fenster wrote:

I'm being implicitly attacked because the very nature of how my camera took the photo rendered part of it out of focus. I honestly don't know whether to be amused or annoyed.

Time to roll the sleeves Mark!! :mad: